Site Meter

Monday, September 3, 2012

P Wilkinson opines...

Meet face to face

Please someone find a venue where Mervyn Cave and Robert Guyton can meet and air their ongoing views face to face instead of your long-suffering readers having to put up with their annoying childish back-stabbing behaviour most days.

P WILIKINSON (not in the phone book)
Riverton

Well, P, the editor, to whom you addressed your request, has found a venue - his letters to the editor column.
Given that I've only ever written one letter to Mr Cave, and he only one to me, it's hard to know how you are being offended by the sight of my and Mervyn's correspondence on a daily basis.
Perhaps you have cut the letters out, pasted them to your wall and sat there reading and re-reading them ad nauseum, til you became fed up to the back teeth with our childish backstabbing. Who knows? You're a mystery to me :-)

28 comments:

Anonymous said...

So you agree it is "childish backstabbing"?

robertguyton said...

I can't speak for Mervyn Cave, who did seem to me to be taking a snarky position, but my contribution was lighthearted and a little provocative in a 'gotcha' sort of way, but "childish backstabbing" - no.
What do you think?

paulinem said...

Robert let her go ..with her mindset nothing can be said to satisfy her.

robertguyton said...

I believe you are right, pauline and have no interest in joining her/his fray. I did think it worthwhile posting here on my own blog, to give myself the pleasure of having my say without the possibility of being criticised publically. I did laugh though! Poor P!

Anonymous said...

Well to paraphrase you."til you became fed up to the back teeth with our childish backstabbing". I am not sure what to think now, one minute you are the next you are not?

Your term "gotcha". A little self honoring in my opinion. I would not go that far. Perhaps P Wilkinson could think "gotcha" given your fear of response.

robertguyton said...

You don't know what to think, Anonymous?
It's not difficult. If you can't sort this one, I worry for you.
As for whether or not I 'checked' Mr Cave with my response, that's for others to decide. I'm told I did. You'll be surprised to learn that I have a team of 'quality control personnel' who give me straight advice on whether my letters are effective or not, every time one is published and some of those are not of my political persuasion at all. So, yes, I do think, gotcha, but another term might suffice - perhaps, 'that was a good reply'. I did laugh though, at Mr Cave's mis-step in declaring that there'd be no other supporters of the BERL report, published on the same page as two letters praising the same. That made me laugh. You could call that a 'gotcha'.

Anonymous said...

So you have a "team" of back slappers?
Can I ask this, when you write a post and you the comments are dominated by "detractors". Do you think, "they gotme?"
Someone should ask Mr Cave if he felt 'gotted'. I suspect he will be smiling.

robertguyton said...

Sometimes. It's good to be 'got' every now and then. Part of the fun, for me and a good way to learn things.
Why don't you ask Mr Cave yourself? You've got fingers and a phone, don't you?
Or perhaps you feel he did well with his letters - wasn't a bit petty and didn't fall in with his last letter? Do tell.

Anonymous said...

To be frank I didnt agree with his last letter. But I didn't agree with yours either.
If he is anything like me I suspect he is looking for a straight answer. Citing a reference was not a straight answer and simply draws out an editorial debate with little outcome. I agree that some of his questions can be leading but that doesn't mean two wrongs make a right.
Is it so hard to say "I believe we should... and here is the evidence" Even politicians need to promote their policies now and again.

robertguyton said...

Getting down to brass tacks now :-)

Here's the real stuff - Mervyn said:
"In all his writings to the paper, he has yet to advance a single, pro-ductive, job creating idea. He is against all economic development. He opposes agricultural intensification, oil and gas utilisation, coal mining and tourist development:"

This is entirely untrue. I have kept all of the letters I've written to the Southland Times over the past 9 years and could produce many letters that do just that, however, saying, I have so! isn't my approach to false accusations such as the one Mervyn made. I don't want to call him out on it, so I provided an immediate example instead. He was rude enough to challenge it's worth! Remember, he didn't say that my suggestions had to satisfy his standards, just that it had to be a job-creating idea. Mt BERL referrence was much more than that, given its content, whether you agree with their suggestions or not. Mervyn's response was churlish. I kept to good humour and didn't get 'childish' as you and 'P' seem to think.
If you really want me to, I can list a or copy examples of letters I've sent over time, but it's a pain to have to do so. I'd far rather tease you into saying something silly, like Mr Cave did. Catching himself out by claiming that no one else would support the BERL report, and doing so on the same page as people who did just that, was classic. 'P's letter was trite, Mervyn's was clumsy.
Does that help, Anonymous?

Anonymous said...

Yes." Tease you into saying something silly". Haven't you just proved Mr Cave right in his first letter? Suddenly I have changed my opinion of the letter from P Wilkins
Mr E

robertguyton said...

You don't really 'get' irony in this format, do you, Anonymous. I have to be more careful not to tug your chain even gently, as you perceive it as a full on attack on your integrity, or so it seems. Perhaps you are 'P'!

robertguyton said...

"Mr E", I meant. Old habits die hard.

Anonymous said...

"or so it seems". You 'seem' wrong. Pardon the phrase.
Let's not get get lost in innuendo, the crux of the post is P Wilkins wants you to vent your issues with Mr Cave face to face. Mr Cave wants you to deliver some productive solutions. You deliver a reference in order to "tease him into saying some thing silly". I am thinking there could be something in the Wilkins suggestion. Why don't you simply face up or call up? It might be a lot less embarrassing.

Anonymous said...

Mr E (above). I am trying to murder habits too.

robertguyton said...

Anonymous. I made the claim at the outset that Mr Cave's questions were not readily answerable. I hold to that. His 'questions were loaded as well as being ungainly. I chose to answer with an example of the very thing he said he desired. Elegant, I thought, and so it transpired. I'm not bound by Mr Cave's demand. He invited a response from me and I took the initiative. I'm sure that irked him. It seems to have irked you. It certainly irked 'P'. I've no concerns about irking people, if their own intentions were less than generous. It's little different that what Mr Cave was trying to do to me, don't you think? One of us was adroit, the other wasn't. That's my assessment.

robertguyton said...

" Why don't you simply face up or call up? It might be a lot less embarrassing."

You want me to call Mr Cave, because 'P' said I should in a snippy letter to the editor? Pssssh! You forget, Mr Cave began the correspondence with a snippy letter to the editor, criticising me. My response was graceful enough. He sent in a second letter, with another barb contained within. I'm not sure why you feel I ought to do anything at all to ease Mr Cave's discomfort - why should I care if he can't remember my positive letters? That said, and I always say and mean this, I'm always willing to meet with and talk face to face with anyone at all about any issue I've written about. Did I mention, btw, that I have been invited to host a regular radio show in which I will be discussing all sorts of issues that engage me? Starts soon and you'll be able to listen to it on your computer if you miss the programmed time. Imagine that! Long live free speech! Maybe Mr Cave could call in, it's talkback as well, or maybe you, M E, would deign to take up the phone and see how you go kanohi ki te kanohi. It'd be hilarious. I'd ring 'P' but he/she's not in the phone book. My most severe critics never are. It's quite odd!

Anonymous said...

You are 'seeming' wrong all over the place. It is an interesting study for me. You have 'no concerns irking people' but are bound to form 'productive relationships'. Your 'team of quality control' may not interested in this? P Wilkins appears to be interested and maybe worried about your image in the public?. Perhaps the letter was good advice? Do you worry that the public may consider your letters as "annoying back-stabbing behaviour"?
Mr E

robertguyton said...

How appealingly naive, Mr E!
Had you wondered why 'P' went to the trouble of writing to the newspaper with his quite pesronal advice, when a phone call would have done quite nicely? You don't think, 'P' had an ulterior motive in writing? Sweet dreams are made of this.
Do I worry that 'the public' might consider my letters ""annoying back-stabbing behaviour", nope.
Tell me, Mr E, do you consider them as such?

Anonymous said...

I have been mislead to radio programmes before under false pretences. I am not interested in the impacts of the moon on plants. Good luck with that. Radio can be fun.

robertguyton said...

Radio is fun, for me any way. I've done quite a bit over time and love being there, headphones clamped on. So you'll not be a listener? Never mind. I may talk about you though. I'll say you are a fan of planting by the moon and that you use biodynamic preparations (cow muck from a cow horn in particular) on your dairy farm. It'll be quite true, you being an anonymous 'everyman' and all :-)

Anonymous said...

Ha. Naive Robert? P Wilkins has suggested that reader(s) are 'annoyed' by the 'behaviour'. What other motive should I be considering? Is there a conspiracy I am not privy too?

You have asked if I consider your letters as containing annoying childish behaviour. In the interest of productive relationships I would have to ask which ones?
Mr E

Anonymous said...

You forgot rich. Your suggestions for a radio discussing seem, well..... Very adult.
Mr E

robertguyton said...

Mr E, 'P' refers to the correspondence between myself and Mr Cave as being that which irks. Given that I only addressed one letter to Mr Cave, it'll have to be that one that you critique. For your convenience, here is the offending letter:

"Mervyn Cave wants me to put forward a productive, job-creating idea that's not pie in the sky.

How about this: read the Berl economic report,
"A View to the South: Potential Low Carbon Growth Opportunities for the Southern Region Economy" that was released at a public meeting in Invercargill just this week.

In it, Mr Cave will find proposals for forestry, horticulture, manufacturing, engineering and education that could ensure that Southland prospers.

It's a new report; it's exciting and it's positive, it's full of job-creating ideas and nothing like the poverty-striken North Korean scenario that Mr Cave describes for Southland.

ROBERT GUYTON
Riverton

Anonymous said...

Robert
P Wilkins appears to be and has stated annoyance. I dont think I can deliberate over that given this reference.
During this particular post you have used the terms such as "irking" and "teasing" in reference to the comment above. Whilst I am sure some adults like to act with such behaviors, I believe plenty of adults would consider those behaviors as 'childish'.
Backstabbing. I dont think so. You have put it out there for the world to see, and criticise.
Mr E

robertguyton said...

You can't deliberate on whether 'P's claim is true or false? You can't, based on the one letter in question, decide whether I behaved the way 'P' claimed?
Really?

Anonymous said...

Given that he/she has stated annoyance, and taken the time to write a letter regarding that annoyance, I have a tendancy to accept that he/she is annoyed. Are you suggesting he/she is not annoyed and is lying about these emotions?
Mr E

robertguyton said...

Clearly, he/she is annoyed. Clearly he/she is wrong to blame me for behaving childishly etc toward Mr cave. My letter shows clearly that I did not. You've seen the letter and were unable to see anything childish or backstabbing in it. I'm wondering why you have such an intense interest in 'P's letter and why you can't see at a glance that he/she was mistaken in her/his claim, so far as my involvement is concerned. You've certainly wrung a lot of diuscussion out of a single, mistaken, letter from 'P'.